FINAL GRANT REPORT
“Theological Education in a Multicultural Environment:
Identifying and Evaluating Best Practices for Empowerment”
Part One: Research and Planning
●
A study at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California
Funded by a grant from the Wabash Center
●
Cameron Lee, Ph.D.
Project Director
Joint Faculty Multiethnic Concerns Committee
●
July 2007
Learning Abstract
An empirical study of full-time students at Fuller Seminary was begun in 2005 to address
issues of pedagogy and climate related to empowering a culturally diverse body of
students. Initial qualitative data were used to construct a questionnaire that was
completed by 298 students. A preliminary report of the findings was then circulated to
external consultants and student focus groups for comment. Survey results indicated that
pedagogical concerns were secondary to those of campus climate. Student focus groups
responses raised significant concerns with implicit and explicit racism in the classroom.
Overall, the study suggests that the empowerment of an increasingly diverse population
of seminary students requires specific attention to the ways in which the classroom and
campus environment may be experienced as unsafe and disempowering.
2
Theological Education in a Multicultural Environment:
Identifying and Evaluating Best Practices for Empowerment
Conditions and Goals
The cultural and ethnic diversity of the student body at Fuller Theological
Seminary’s main campus in Pasadena, California, presents both opportunities and
challenges for theological education. In 2002, the seminary’s Joint Faculty Multiethnic
Concerns Committee (JFMCC) drafted a Statement on Racial Justice and Intercultural
Life. Through the subsequent adoption of that statement, the seminary community
pledged to maintain a respectful and supportive multiethnic environment.
The ultimate goal has been to create and sustain a learning environment that is
welcoming to students of all cultural backgrounds, and that best empowers students to
minister effectively in the various cultures to which they are called. But how should we
proceed? What do we know about student perceptions of the social environment of the
seminary, and the appropriateness and effectiveness of the faculty’s pedagogical
methods? The JFMCC decided that concrete policy recommendations could not be made
without at least some preliminary answers to such questions. The committee therefore
established an intermediate goal of collecting relevant student data.
The present study was designed to provide systematically collected student data
upon which recommendations for both classroom practice and broader seminary policies
might be based. Various ad hoc studies regarding multicultural issues have been done in
the past. While informative, these have tended to rely upon the anecdotal reports of a
small number of students, raising questions about how well their experiences could be
generalized to the whole student body.
Noting the lack of systematic data on which to base policy recommendations, the
JFMCC applied to the Wabash Center and received a research and planning grant in the
amount of $20,260. The grant was awarded in 2004. This report summarizes the results
of the research, which was completed in four stages.
Method / Grant Activities
Stage One: Qualitative questionnaire
Stage One began in the Winter of 2005. Narrative/qualitative responses were
sought from a small but culturally diverse sample of Fuller students. A slate of 54 fulltime students (6 students from each of 9 ethnic groups) from the Pasadena campus were
nominated by the leadership of their respective student groups (e.g. the Korean Students
Association), or by the Office of Student Advising, where no cultural student advocacy
group was available. Within each group, 3 of the nominees were students in Fuller’s
School of Theology, two were from the School of Intercultural Studies, and 1 was from
the School of Psychology.
All 54 students were contacted by a research assistant and offered $30 bookstore
gift certificates as incentives for completing a questionnaire comprised of 10 open-ended
questions. The questions addressed five areas:
3
•
Campus climate: How do faculty, students, and staff create (or fail to create) a
campus environment that welcomes diversity?
• Curricular adequacy: What aspects of the curriculum are most helpful in
preparing students for ministry in a multicultural world? What is missing?
• Pedagogy: Which classroom teaching practices do students of different
backgrounds find most effective and culturally relevant?
• Strategies of evaluation: Of the many ways of evaluating learning and student
progress, which are experienced as culturally appropriate or inappropriate, and
why?
• Empowerment for ministry: How well does what the students learn apply to the
settings in which they already minister? How well does it apply to their
anticipated future ministries?
Questionnaires were provided in English, Spanish, and Korean, as needed.
Of the 54 nominees, 24 students consented to participate (44 %), and returned
completed questionnaires. Students were not asked to provide any descriptive
information about themselves, so the ethnic and gender characteristics of the 24
respondents are unknown. For the sake of brevity, their complex narrative responses to
the 10 questions are not included in this report. These responses, however, were used to
design a survey instrument for the second stage of the research.
Stage Two: Quantitative questionnaire
The second stage of data collection began in the Spring Quarter of 2005. Using
the results of Stage One as a basis, a 7-page questionnaire was created to assess the
degree to which those students’ perceptions and experiences might be generalized to the
whole of the student body. The questionnaire (available upon request), included the
following:
• 12 demographic items;
• 3 items measuring expectations for multicultural training at Fuller;
• 3 items measuring the perceived success of this training;
• 14 general items regarding the social environment of Fuller (e.g. “People of
different ethnic and cultural backgrounds are welcome at Fuller”);
• Measures of the perceived helpfulness of 18 instructional practices;
• Measures of the perceived accuracy of 11 methods of evaluating student
performance / learning;
• 3 items measuring whether students need extra consideration in assignments and
exams;
• 15 items assessing the frequency of a variety of classroom experiences related to
learning in a multicultural environment;
• A list of 12 campus events to assess each respondents overall level of
involvement in explicitly or potentially multicultural activities;
• 4 items addressing the relationship of respondents’ training to their anticipated
ministries.
The final page of the questionnaire asked students to nominate a Fuller course that they
considered exemplary in terms of multicultural training. Respondents were given space
to comment on the characteristics of the course they found most helpful. This
4
information will be used for a further phase of study, and does not appear in the present
report.
Questionnaires were distributed through classrooms with the permission of the
instructors. At the beginning of class, either the instructor or a member of the JFMCC
explained the study and solicited student participation. Each student who consented to
participate received a packet containing a questionnaire and a cover letter/informed
consent document explaining the research, a pen, and a ticket to be used later in a prize
drawing (one of 50 bookstore gift certificates, in $10 and $20 denominations). Students
were instructed when and where to return their completed questionnaires and tickets.
With the assistance of the Registrar, the SOT and SIS courses with the largest
enrollment were selected. Because SOP courses are taught by cohorts (first year, second
year, etc.), the largest courses for each cohort were selected. A total of 883
questionnaires were distributed; 298 were returned, for a response rate of approximately
34%.
In order to streamline the analysis, factor analysis and reliability testing were
performed on larger sets of questions, in order to combine separate items into meaningful
scales. Five such scales were created, as described below.
• Perceived infrastructural need. This scale was comprised of 3 of the 14 social
environment items described above. They assess students’ perceptions of the
need for (a) more books by non-White authors as required reading for courses; (b)
more library books in other languages; (c) greater ethnic diversity in the seminary
faculty.1
• Unease with diversity. Another 3 social environment items assessed student
perceptions of unease with multicultural diversity in the classroom: (a)
“Professors are not comfortable engaging cultural perspectives other than their
own,” (b) “Students are not comfortable engaging different cultural perspectives
in the classroom,” and (c) “The thoughts and opinions of people from all ethnic
and cultural backgrounds are respected in the classroom” (this item was reversescored).2
• Multicultural orientation in the classroom. This scale was comprised of 8 of the
15 classroom environment items described earlier, asking students how often they
actually observed various faculty or student behaviors in the classroom. Facultyoriented items assessed whether professors (a) required books by non-White
authors, (b) encouraged other cultural points of view, (c) solicited the input of
students from minority cultures, (d) demonstrated knowledge of other cultures as
appropriate, (e) referred to authors from diverse cultures, and (f) cautioned
students against making culturally-biased overgeneralizations. Student-oriented
items asked whether students (a) showed interest in other cultural points of view,
and (b) had discussions in culturally diverse groups.3
• Inappropriate humor. Two classroom environment items assessed how often
professors and/or students respectively used inappropriate racial humor.4
1
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for this scale was .72.
Cronbach’s alpha = .70.
3
Cronbach’s alpha = .84.
4
Cronbach’s alpha = .80.
2
5
•
Cultural disrespect. Another two classroom environment items assessed the
overall attitude toward students of different cultures: (a) “What minority students
said in class was treated with less seriousness or respect,” and (b) “Others showed
impatience while non-English language students tried to express themselves.”5
Other items were analyzed separately.
Three types of information were gleaned from an extensive examination of the
data. First, descriptive profiles were created to summarize the overall patterns of
response to the variables (e.g. average scores).6 Second, group comparisons were
conducted to determine whether students of different cultural / ethnic or gender groups
differed in their perceptions of the campus environment. Cultural / ethnic differences
were operationalized through four different comparisons:
• Majority status. Students who identified themselves by such terms as “white,”
“Caucasian,” and “European” were classified into one group and compared to
students who classified themselves differently. For the purposes of this report, the
designations “majority” and “minority,” when applied adjectivally to respondents,
will refer specifically to this variable.
• Country of origin. Students who were born in the United States were compared to
those born outside the U.S. The former will be referred to as “U.S. born” or
“USB”; the latter will be designated as “non-U.S. born” or “NUSB.”
• First language. Students whose first language was English were compared to
those who cited a different language. In this report, respondents who affirmed
English as their first language will be referred to as “English-first-language”
students or “EFL”; the remaining respondents will be referred to as “other-firstlanguage” students or “OFL.”
• American ethnicity. The subset of students born in the U.S. was further classified
into the following categories: (a) White/Caucasian; (b) Black/ African-American;
(c) Asian American; and (d) Hispanic/Latino American.
Third, correlational analyses were conducted to determine what social environment and
classroom variables, if any, appear to be associated with four variables that potentially
indicate whether Fuller is succeeding in the multicultural task of empowerment. These
included one item measuring whether what is taught in the classroom was perceived by
students as relevant to their anticipated ministries, and three items assessing whether
training at Fuller was seen as succeeding in helping respondents learn (a) “the specific
ways that cultures differ from each other,” (b) “how to be more culturally sensitive,” and
(c) “how to be more critically aware of [his/her] own cultural biases.”
Results of the analyses will be reported below, under “Statistical Findings.”
Findings will be presented in three stages, according to the three types of information
described above: descriptive analyses, group comparisons, and correlational analyses.
Stage Three: Consultation and feedback
During the 2005-2006 academic year, questionnaire data were analyzed, and a
preliminary report of the results was written by the Project Director. This report was then
circulated to six external consultants for their consideration and written response. This
5
6
Cronbach’s alpha = .65.
Unless otherwise noted, “averages” reported in this document refer to the arithmetic mean.
6
ethnically diverse panel was sought for their known expertise in issues of cultural
diversity. The consultants (listed alphabetically) were:
• Dr. Terry Anderson, Vancouver School of Theology;
• Dr. Miguel De La Torre, Iliff School of Theology;
• Dr. Nancy Ramsay, Brite Divinity School;
• Dr. Samuel Roberts, Union Theological Seminary;
• Dr. Darryl Trimiew, Medgar Evers College;
• Dr. Eui-Young Yu, California State University, Los Angeles.
An integrated summary of their questions and insights will be presented below under
“Consultant Commentary.”
Stage Four: Student focus groups
From the Spring of 2006 to the Winter of 2007, a different type of consultant
response was sought in the final stage of research. Concerned that the one-third response
rate to the survey (and the under-representation of certain ethnic groups) might not
adequately represent the student body, the JFMCC sought to convene student focus
groups to read and comment on the preliminary report. Again, potential participants were
nominated for participation, and contacted by a research assistant. Students were offered
bookstore gift certificates as incentives for their participation. Participants were asked to
individually read the report, reflect on the ways in which the report either reflected or
failed to reflect their own experience at Fuller, and then attend a focus group discussion.
Three groups were convened, representing Latino, Korean, and African-American
students respectively. To encourage candid responses, groups were facilitated by nonfaculty: one African-American graduate student, one Korean-American graduate student,
and one Latino alumnus. A summary of student observations will be presented below
under “Student Commentary.”
Statistical Findings
Participants
The majority of respondents were female (60%), with two students declining to
give their gender. Respondents ranged in age from 22 to 70 years, with a median age of
28. Over half of the sample was unmarried (56 %).
Forty seven percent of the returns were from SOT students (140), followed by
SOP students (118), and SIS students (32). SOP students were thus overrepresented in
the sample, and SIS students underrepresented. Eight students declined to state their
school. Respondents reported having been students at Fuller for an average of just under
7 quarters.
Students were occupied not only with their studies, but with ministry and nonministry related work off-campus. Nearly 80 percent of respondents reported at least 1
hour of ministry involvement per week: among these students, the median number of
hours of ministry was 6 (with one student reporting 50 hours). Sixty percent of students
were also engaged in paid work not related to ministry: these students averaged nearly 16
hours of work per week.
Of the 298 questionnaires returned, 276 (93%) were completed in English; only
11 each were returned in Korean and Spanish. Just slightly over half of the respondents
7
identified their ethnic / cultural background as “white,” “Caucasian,” or some similar
term. The majority of the respondents were also born in the U.S. (71%) and had English
as their first language (76%).
Descriptive analyses
Instructional methods
The questionnaire presented 18 different instructional methodologies used at
Fuller, and asked respondents to rate “how helpful you have generally found that method
to be in helping you learn.” Respondents were instructed to rate only those methods they
had actually experienced. Table 1 shows the number of students who experienced each
method and the average helpfulness score for each, then ranks the results from most to
least helpful.
Table 1
How helpful are the instructional methods?
Method
Lecture from lecture notes
PowerPoint
Interaction w/ prof outside class
Printed lecture outline/notes
Movie clips
Field trips
Music
Discussion with whole class
Panel discussion
Fishbowl
Small group discussion
Reflection papers
Research papers
Student presentations
Cultural immersion
Cultural autobiography
Profs question students on reading
Real world application of lectures
#
Avg.
291
293
257
289
272
115
183
287
211
141
290
292
285
255
91
105
230
277
3.55
3.93
4.27
4.17
3.92
3.97
3.40
3.84
3.86
3.60
3.80
3.84
3.87
3.51
3.96
3.71
3.20
4.55
Rank
15
6
2
3
7
4
17
10
9
14
12
10
8
16
5
13
18
1
Note: 1 = not helpful at all; 2 = not very helpful; 3 = a little helpful;
4 = very helpful; 5 = extremely helpful
There was great variation, of course, in how often each method was actually
experienced in this sample. Fewer than a third of the respondents had experienced
cultural immersion assignments; only a slightly higher proportion had written cultural
autobiographies or participated in field trips. Not surprisingly, nearly everyone had
experienced lectures, PowerPoint presentations, discussions, and reflection and research
papers as methods of learning.
8
But how helpful overall did students find each method to be in fostering learning?
It should be noted first that all 18 methods were rated, on average, as being at least “a
little helpful.” The highest-rated strategy (very to extremely helpful), however, was for
professors to make “real world” applications of lecture material. The second most highly
rated was in some ways not properly an instructional method as it was an alternative
avenue for student learning: the interaction between a student and professor outside of
class. The common practice of lecturing from lecture notes was ranked 15th in
helpfulness; some respondents wrote additional comments on their surveys suggesting
that reading from lecture notes was particularly unhelpful.
Evaluation method
The questionnaire also presented 11 methods by which faculty evaluate student
performance. Respondents were asked to rate each according to “how accurately you
think this type of evaluation measures what you’ve actually learned.” Again, respondents
were instructed to rate only those methods they had experienced personally. Table 2
presents the results in a manner similar to Table 1.
Table 2
How accurate are the evaluation methods?
Method
Research papers
Multiple choice exams
Essay exams
Student presentations
Experiential assignments
Creative writing assignments
Art projects
Reflection papers
Smaller quizzes spread throughout the quarter
Exams with mixed
types of questions
Term papers that focus on
integrating reading assignments
#
Avg.
Rank
287
266
280
242
141
132
119
286
243
3.52
3.29
3.75
3.32
3.63
3.49
3.18
3.69
3.76
7
10
3
9
6
8
11
5
2
250
3.70
4
265
3.89
1
Note: 1 = not accurate at all; 2 = not very accurate; 3 = somewhat accurate;
4 = very accurate; 5 = extremely accurate
Again, there was expectable variation in how often such practices were actually
used: while virtually all students have written research or reflection papers, fewer than
half have done art projects or creative writing assignments.
The range of ratings of accuracy was more restricted than for the helpfulness of
instructional methods. While all 11 methods of evaluation were rated at least “somewhat
accurate” on average, none was rated “very accurate” or higher. The highest rated
method was the use of term papers that integrate assigned readings. Second was the use
9
of smaller quizzes spread throughout the quarter. Essay and mixed format exams were
ranked 3rd and 4th respectively, but multiple choice exams ranked 10th out of 11.
In a related question, students generally agreed7 that they “need to have
assignments spread out over the quarter” as opposed to being due all at one time.
General social environment
Table 3 shows the average ratings for 10 measures of the social environment of
the seminary, as it relates to cultural diversity. The results indicate a mixture of positive
and negative views. On the one hand, respondents tended to agree that students of
diverse background were welcome at Fuller, that this diversity had been personally
valuable, and that they had made at least one good friend from a different cultural
background. They also tended to disagree that there was a sense of unease with diversity
in the behavior of professors and students.
Table 3
Ratings of general social environment variables
Item / variable
Perceived infrastructural need
Unease with diversity
Diverse people welcome at Fuller
“Multiculturalism” mostly valued as a
politically correct slogan
Some students, for cultural reasons, need to be
encouraged to speak up in class
Diversity at Fuller has been personally valuable
Students whose 1st language is not English should have more
time on exams in English language courses
Have made at least one good friend of another culture
Students socialize in culturally homogeneous groups
For a multicultural environment, professor / student attitude is
more important than course content
#
Avg.
249
292
297
2.90
2.07
3.39
289
2.40
291
3.02
294
3.38
290
3.03
296
293
3.25
3.03
296
2.93
Note: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = agree; 4 = strongly agree
On the other hand, respondents also agreed that students tend to socialize in their
own culturally homogeneous groups; that students whose first language was not English
should be allowed more time on exams; and that some students of minority cultures need
to be encouraged more to speak up in class. Respondents tended to agree that more
infrastructural support for diversity was needed, and seemed to be divided on the issue of
whether or not “multiculturalism” was anything more than just a slogan for the sake of
political correctness.
7
Average score of 3.03 on a 4-point scale, where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 =
strongly agree.
10
Classroom environment
Table 4 shows the ratings for 6 variables related to the more specific matter of
classroom environment. These were frequency ratings, ranging from “never” to
“always.” Instances of inappropriate racial humor by faculty or students and
manifestations of cultural disrespect were present but infrequent. More common was the
event of majority students shying away from minority students in group discussions, and
the expectation by professors that minority students would act as experts in their own
cultures. Diversity issues were “sometimes” addressed without being integrated into the
logic or structure of a course. The highest frequency rating went to indications of a
positive multicultural orientation (see p. 5 above), but this occurs on average only
“sometimes.”
Table 4
Ratings of classroom environment variables
Item / variable
Multicultural orientation in the classroom
Inappropriate racial humor
Cultural disrespect
Majority students shy away from
minority students in discussions
Profs expect minority students to act as
experts in their own cultures
Diversity issues addressed but not integrated into course
#
Avg.
273
294
291
2.14
.57
1.03
291
1.53
293
1.92
283
2.02
Note: 0 = never; 1 = seldom; 2 = sometimes; 3 = often; 4 = always
Expectations and perceived outcomes
Did students expect multicultural training at Fuller? If so, how well was Fuller
succeeding in accomplishing this task? Table 5 displays the average ratings across the
sample on 10 variables related to expectations and outcomes.
In general, students expected to be trained to work in a multicultural environment.
This includes, in order of relative importance, being more critically aware of one’s own
cultural biases, being more culturally sensitive, and understanding the specific ways in
which cultures differ. Ratings of how well Fuller had actually succeeded in these latter
three areas lagged behind expectations (these differences were significant), though
success ratings were closer to “agree” than “disagree.”
The average rating for the relevance of classes to respondents’ anticipated
ministries fell just short of “agree.” It should also be noted, however, that as a group,
respondents were less than certain about what ministries they would actually be engaged
in after graduation, making the relevance question more difficult to answer.
11
Table 5
Expectations and perceived outcomes
Variable
In terms of ministry, I know what I will be doing when I
finish my training at Fuller
I expect Fuller to train me to work in a multicultural
environment
Without Fuller’s help, I already know most of what I need to
know about the cultural context in which I will probably be
working
What I am being taught in my classes is usually relevant to
the kind of ministry I anticipate being involved in
#
Avg
295
2.86
297
3.12
293
2.35
296
2.96
296
3.26a
297
3.43b
297
3.52c
295
2.79a
295
2.93b
295
2.94c
I want my training at Fuller to…
…help me understand the specific ways that cultures differ
from each other
…teach me how to be more culturally sensitive
…teach me how to be more critically aware of my own
cultural biases
Thus far, my training at Fuller has succeeded in…
…helping me understand the specific ways that cultures
differ from each other
…teaching me how to be more culturally sensitive
…teaching me how to be more critically aware of my own
cultural biases
Note: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = agree; 4 = strongly disagree
a
Difference is significant: dependent measures t (294) = 10.93, p = .000.
Difference is significant: dependent measures t (294) = 11.16, p = .000.
c
Difference is significant: dependent measures t (294) = 12.68, p = .000.
b
Group comparisons
Since the respondents represented a culturally diverse student body, it is
reasonable to expect that scores averaged across the entire sample would mask
differences between cultural or ethnic groups. The above variables were therefore also
analyzed for evidence of group differences, both by gender and cultural / ethnic
background. As described earlier, the latter was operationalized by majority status,
country of origin, first language, and ethnic differences within U.S.-born students.8
8
Independent measures t-tests are used for differences by gender, majority status, origin, and language;
one-way analysis of variance is used for ethnic differences within the U.S. born students.
12
Significant differences between cultural / ethnic groups were further tested to see if the
role of cultural differences was also complicated by gender effects.9
Gender and instructional / evaluation methods
Of the 18 instructional methods presented, only 2 showed statistically significant
differences between women and men in terms of perceived helpfulness.10 Female
students found printed outlines and field trips more helpful than male students did.11 As
was true of the sample as a whole, men and women alike found real-world applications of
lectures and interactions with professors outside class to be the most helpful.12 There
were no significant gender differences on methods of evaluation.
Gender and general social / classroom environment
Female and male respondents differed significantly on only one measure of the
general social environment: females were more likely to agree that students socialize in
culturally homogeneous groups.13 For both men and women as a group, the two most
highly endorsed items were that diverse students were welcome at Fuller, and that
diversity had been personally valuable. There were no significant differences between
genders on any of the variables related to classroom environment.
Gender and expectation / perceived outcome variables
Only one significant gender difference emerged for the expectation / outcome
variables: men were more likely than women to agree that they knew what ministry they
would be engaged in after graduation.14
Culture / ethnicity and instructional / evaluation methods
Thus, there were few significant group differences by gender. Were there
differences by culture and ethnicity? Tables 6 and 7 show the results of cultural group
comparisons on the instructional and evaluation variables. Only a handful of
comparisons were statistically significant, but there was some consistency in the results.
U.S.-born students were more likely than NUSB students to rate music as a
helpful instructional method, though relative to other methodologies, it was not highly
rated by either group (see Table 6). More strikingly, both white majority students and
EFL students were more likely to see interaction with professors outside of class as
helpful than were their minority or OFL counterparts. All tests for ethnic subgroup
differences within USB students were non-significant.
9
Using a two-way analysis of variance procedure to test for interaction effects.
Because of the large number of significance tests being performed, a more conservative alpha level of .01
will be employed; i.e. only results where p < .01 or better will be reported as statistically significant. The
exception will be for tests for interaction effects, where alpha will remain at the conventional .05.
11
For printed outlines: females, n = 170, mean = 4.29; males, n = 117, mean = 4.00; t (285) = 3.08. For
field trips: females, n = 61, mean = 4.21; males, n = 53, mean = 3.68; t (94) = 2.74.
12
The mean differences between men and women on both of these variables were significant at p < .05,
with women higher in both cases.
13
Females, n = 174, mean = 3.11; males, n = 117, mean = 2.90; t (289) = 2.58.
14
Females, n = 175, mean = 2.71; males, n = 118, mean = 3.09; t (291) = -4.15, p < .001.
10
13
Table 6. Cultural / ethnic group differences on instructional methods
Method
Lecture
PowerPoint
Interact w/
prof outside
class
Printed
lecture
outlines/notes
Movie clips
Field trips
Music
Discussion w/
whole class
Panel
discussion
Fishbowl
Small group
discussion
Reflection
papers
Research
papers
Student
presentations
Cultural
immersion
Cultural
autobiography
Profs question
students on
reading
Real world
application
Majority status
White
majority
Other
#
Avg
#
Avg
Country of origin
United
States
Other
#
Avg
#
Avg
First language
English
#
Avg
Other
#
Avg
146
148
3.45
3.87
145
145
3.66
4.00
206
207
3.54
3.89
85
86
3.59
4.04
222
223
3.53
3.91
66
67
3.62
4.03
133
4.42
124
4.11
188
4.33
69
4.10
202
4.34
53
3.98
144
4.17
145
4.18
201
4.21
88
4.09
217
4.19
69
4.09
135
51
95
3.91
4.14
3.47
137
64
88
3.92
3.84
3.33
192
78
134
3.92
4.06
3.52
80
37
49
3.91
3.78
3.10
206
82
141
3.94
4.05
3.47
63
32
40
3.83
3.75
3.20
147
3.88
140
3.79
203
3.90
84
3.68
219
3.86
66
3.76
100
3.93
111
3.79
144
3.93
67
3.70
156
3.89
53
3.81
65
3.79
76
3.43
94
3.68
47
3.43
100
3.68
41
3.39
147
3.80
143
3.79
206
3.85
84
3.67
220
3.83
67
3.73
146
3.88
146
3.81
206
3.85
86
3.81
222
3.84
67
3.85
143
3.87
142
3.87
199
3.85
86
3.92
214
3.85
68
3.94
125
3.42
130
3.60
176
3.49
79
3.56
190
3.51
64
3.53
34
4.06
57
3.90
53
4.06
38
3.82
56
4.07
35
3.77
47
3.65
58
3.77
68
3.68
37
3.78
72
3.65
32
3.88
108
3.07
122
3.32
158
3.11
72
3.40
169
3.12
59
3.48
140
4.58
137
4.52
197
4.58
80
4.46
213
4.59
61
4.39
Note 1: Pairs of scores in bold/italic font are significantly different at p < .01 (using independentmeasures t-tests).
Note 2: 1 = not helpful at all; 2 = not very helpful; 3 = a little helpful; 4 = very helpful; 5 =
extremely helpful
Regarding evaluation methods, two related group differences emerge (see Table
7). Majority and U.S.-born students were more likely to rate exams with mixed question
types as accurate measures of their learning than were minority and NUSB students.
Similarly, majority, USB, and EFL students rated essay exams more highly than their
counterparts. As for the sample as a whole, term papers integrating assigned readings
14
were the preferred method of evaluation across the board. There were no significant
group differences by American ethnic subgroups.
Table 7. Cultural / ethnic group differences on evaluation methods
Method
Research
papers
Multiple
choice exams
Essay exams
Student
presentations
Experiential
assignments
Creative
writing
Art projects
Reflection
papers
Quizzes
throughout
quarter
Exams
w/ mixed
question types
Term papers
integrating
readings
Majority status
White
majority
Other
#
Avg
#
Avg
Country of origin
United
States
Other
#
Avg
#
Avg
First language
English
#
Avg
Other
#
Avg
144
3.49
143
3.54
202
3.50
85
3.57
217
3.49
67
3.60
134
3.33
132
3.24
191
3.26
75
3.36
204
3.28
59
3.32
142
3.92
138
3.57
200
3.89
80
3.39
214
3.86
63
3.43
120
3.27
122
3.38
166
3.31
76
3.36
179
3.33
61
3.37
71
3.75
70
3.51
95
3.74
46
3.41
103
3.74
37
3.38
60
3.65
72
3.35
85
3.61
47
3.26
91
3.60
40
3.20
60
3.22
59
3.14
82
3.29
37
2.92
85
3.29
34
2.88
145
3.77
141
3.62
201
3.75
85
3.56
217
3.71
66
3.64
123
3.81
120
3.70
174
3.78
69
3.69
186
3.77
56
3.72
134
3.84
116
3.54
186
3.79
64
3.47
199
3.75
49
3.55
130
3.94
135
3.84
186
3.91
79
3.84
197
3.87
65
3.97
Note 1: Pairs of scores in bold/italic font are significantly different at p < .01 (using independentmeasures t-tests).
Note 2: 1 = not accurate at all; 2 = not very accurate; 3 = somewhat accurate; 4 = very accurate;
5 = extremely accurate
Did any of these cultural differences interact with gender? Only one significant
interaction effect emerged for instructional methods, and none for evaluation methods. In
the case of the helpfulness of interacting with professors outside class, gender interacted
with the difference between language groups.15 Males on average were less likely to find
such interaction helpful than females. Moreover, the helpfulness gap between EFL and
OFL groups was greater for males than for females. In other words, among male
respondents, the mean for EFL students was 3.68, as opposed to 4.28 for OFL students, a
gap of over half a point on a five-point scale. By contrast, the corresponding means for
women were 4.32 and 4.37, a gap of only .05. Thus, overall, males found interaction
15
For the interaction, F (1,251) = 4.69, p = .03; for the main effect of gender, F (1, 251) = 8.60, p = .004;
for the main effect of first language, F (1, 251) = 6.69, p = .01.
15
with the professor less helpful than females, EFL students found such interaction more
helpful than OFL students, and the language distinction made more difference to men.
Table 8. Cultural / ethnic group differences on general social
environment
Variable
Infrastructural
need
Unease with
diversity
Diverse people
welcome
Multicultural’m
mostly a PC
slogan
Some students
need to be
encouraged
to speak up
Diversity at
Fuller
personally
valuable
More time on
exams for nonEnglish students
Have made 1
good friend of
another culture
Students
socialize
in culturally
homogeneous
groups
Attitude more
important than
course content
Majority status
White
majority
Other
Country of origin
United
States
Other
First language
English
#
Avg
#
Avg
#
Avg
#
Avg
#
Avg
#
Avg
113
2.71
136
3.07
167
2.82
82
3.08
180
2.84
66
3.08
147
1.92
145
2.23
207
1.99
85
2.28
222
2.02
67
2.25
149
3.54
148
3.25
210
3.48
87
3.19
225
3.45
69
3.18
145
2.21
144
2.59
205
2.32
84
2.59
221
2.36
66
2.55
144
2.90
147
3.14
204
2.94
87
3.22
220
2.96
68
3.22
147
3.51
147
3.25
208
3.43
86
3.25
223
3.41
68
3.26
145
2.94
145
3.11
204
2.95
86
3.22
218
2.94
69
3.30
149
3.21
147
3.28
209
3.24
87
3.27
225
3.24
68
3.26
145
2.97
148
3.08
205
3.01
88
3.06
221
3.02
69
3.07
148
2.83
148
3.03
208
2.87
88
3.09
224
2.90
69
3.09
Other
Note 1: Pairs of scores in bold/italic font are significantly different at p < .01 (using independentmeasures t-tests).
Note 2: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = agree; 4 = strongly agree
Culture / ethnicity and general social environment
As Tables 8 and 9 demonstrate, it was in the perception of the social and
classroom environment that cultural group differences emerged most consistently.
Results for general social environment variables are presented in Table 8 above.
Not surprisingly, NUSB and OFL students were more likely to endorse the idea that OFL
students should be given more time on exams. This was additionally supported by
consistent group differences on two additional survey items, “Because of my language
16
skills, I am anxious in exams,” and “I need extra time for essay questions.” Minority,
NUSB, and OFL students tended toward agreement with both of these items significantly
more than their majority, USB, and EFL counterparts.16
White majority students were more likely to agree that diversity had been
personally valuable. This distinction did not hold for country of origin and language;
though the mean differences were in the same direction, the differences were not large
enough to be statistically significant. The difference did, however, hold for the ethnic
subgroups within respondents born in the U.S., with white students scoring significantly
higher in their appreciation of Fuller’s diversity than Asian-Americans.17 This latter
result, however, was based on a small subgroup of only 21 Asian-American students and
should be viewed with caution.
Minority students and those born outside the U.S. were also more likely to agree
that multiculturalism was a political slogan at Fuller, though it should be noted that the
mean score of 2.59 in both cases suggests that this opinion was not strongly held
throughout the entire group. This distinction also held between American ethnic groups,
with African-American students tending more toward agreement (2.88) than white
students (2.21).18 Again, an interpretive caution: this result was based on information
from only 16 black students.
While students of all backgrounds agreed that Fuller welcomes diverse people,
majority, USB, and EFL students were likely to agree more strongly. There were no
corresponding group differences among the American ethnic subgroups.
The most consistent findings in this category pertained to the composite variables
of perceived infrastructural need and unease with diversity. Minority, NUSB, and OFL
students were all more likely to agree that greater multicultural resources were needed.
There was also a significant difference between American ethnic groups on this variable,
with a post hoc comparison showing that African-American students were significantly
more likely to agree (average of 3.34) than white students (2.70).19
Similarly, significant differences emerged across all four cultural group
distinctions on the variable of perception of unease with diversity. Though the tendency
for all groups was to disagree that such unease exists, minority, NUSB, and OFL students
disagreed less strongly. Within the American-born subgroups, Hispanic/Latino students
disagreed most strongly (average of 1.79), followed by white students (1.93); AfricanAmerican students were significantly less likely to disagree (2.47) than either group.20
As with the African- and Asian-American students, the Hispanic/Latino-American group
was small, comprised of only 13 individuals.
16
On anxiety in exams: majority, n = 146, mean = 1.37; minority, n = 141, mean = 2.11; t (285) = -7.27, p
< .001; USB, n = 201, mean = 1.37; NUSB, n = 86, mean = 2.52; t (285) = -10.92, p < .001; EFL, n = 218,
mean = 1.42; OFL, n = 66, mean = 2.71; t (282) = -11.33, p < .001. On extra time for essays: majority, n =
148, mean = 1.98; minority, n = 143, mean = 2.53; t (289) = -5.11, p < .001; USB, n = 206, mean = 2.03;
NUSB, n = 85, mean = 2.77; t (289) = -6.38, p < .001; EFL, n = 221, mean = 2.05; OFL, n = 67, mean =
2.92; t (286) = -7.00, p < .001. Items use a 4-point scale, where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 =
agree, and 4 = strongly agree.
17
The overall F (3, 198) = 4.76, p = .003. A post hoc Scheffé test reveals a significant difference (p < .05)
between White/European-Americans, n = 152, mean = 3.52 and Asian Americans, n = 21, mean = 3.05.
18
F (3,195) = 4.89, p = .003; post hoc Scheffé test significant at p < .05.
19
F (3, 157) = 6.30, p = .000; post hoc Scheffé test significant at p < .05.
20
F (3, 197) = 6.48, p = .000; post hoc Scheffé test significant at p < .05.
17
These differences, again, were examined for the possibility of gender interactions.
Several significant interactions arose from the analyses. As we have seen, majority
students were more likely to agree that diversity at Fuller had been personally valuable.
There was no direct relation of gender to this social environment variable. There was,
however, an interaction between gender and majority status, such that the latter made
more difference to women than it did to men where the evaluation of diversity was
concerned.21 Minority women showed the lowest average level of agreement (3.11) and
majority women the highest (3.54), while there was a much smaller difference between
minority men (3.42) and majority men (3.44).
Similarly, gender interacted with cultural group differences on the variable of
supporting more time on exams for OFL students. In these cases, cultural group status
made more difference for the men than for the women. OFL students, as we have seen,
were more apt to support more time on exams, and there was no direct effect of gender on
this variable.22 But language made more difference for the men: male EFL students were
least supportive (2.91), while male OFL students were most supportive of granting more
time (3.47). Women’s average agreement scores fell in the middle (2.96 and 3.13
respectively).23 A similar pattern held for the group distinction of country of origin.
American-born males were least likely to agree that more time should be given (2.90)
while NUSB males were most likely to agree (3.37). Again, women’s average scores fell
between these two groups (2.97 and 3.06 respectively).24
Gender also interacted with all three group differences in Table 8 on the variable
of perceived infrastructural need. In each case, the interaction was accounted for in part
by the greater disparity between cultural groups among males than among females. This
disparity was least striking (though significant) when viewed through the lens of majority
status. Minority students were more likely to view Fuller’s infrastructure as lacking than
were white majority students, and in this case, there was also a gender difference, such
that women were more likely to perceive this lack than men.25 But again, the culture gap
was greater for men than for women.26 White males were least likely to agree that there
was an infrastructural need, with an average score of 2.46; minority men, by contrast,
averaged 3.03. White women averaged in the middle at 2.86; but minority women were
the most likely to see the need, with an average score of 3.11.
Where country of origin and language were the group distinctions, it was again
the men who showed the greatest disparity. American-born and EFL men were least
likely to agree that there was an infrastructural need (2.57 and 2.63 respectively). By
contrast, NUSB and OFL men were most likely to perceive such a need (3.17 and 3.11
respectively). Women’s scores fell between these extremes. Women born inside versus
21
For the interaction term, F (1, 288) = 6.43, p = .01; for the main effect of gender, F (1, 288) = 1.78, p =
.18; for the main effect of majority status, F (1, 288) = 7.90, p = .005.
22
For the main effect of language status, F (1, 283) = 14.61, p = .000; for the main effect of gender, F (1,
283) = 2.46, p = .12.
23
For the interaction term, F (1, 283) = 4.06, p =.05.
24
For the interaction term, F (1, 284) = 4.33, p = .04; for the main effect of gender, F (1, 284) = 1.84, p =
.18; for the main effect of country of origin, F (1, 284) = 9.56, p = .002.
25
For the main effect of majority status, F (1, 243) = 29.48, p = .000; for the main effect of gender, F (1,
243) = 10.15, p = .002.
26
For the interaction term, F (1, 243) = 4.34, p = .04.
18
outside the U.S. averaged 2.96 and 3.08 respectively. Similarly, EFL women averaged
2.97, as compared to their OFL counterparts, who averaged 3.06.27
Table 9. Cultural / ethnic group differences on classroom environment
Variable
Multicultural
orientation in
classroom
Inappropriate
humor
Cultural
disrespect
Majority
students shy
away from
minority in
discussions
Profs expect
minority
students to
act as experts
Diversity
addressed
but not
integrated
Majority status
White
majority
Other
#
Avg
#
Avg
Country of origin
United
States
Other
#
Avg
#
Avg
First language
English
#
Avg
140
2.35
133
1.92
197
2.25
76
1.87
212
2.19
58
1.97
150
.42
144
.74
209
.54
85
.66
225
.55
66
.67
149
.77
142
1.31
208
.83
83
1.53
224
.88
64
1.55
148
1.30
143
1.77
207
1.41
84
1.85
224
1.43
64
1.89
148
1.93
145
1.91
207
1.94
86
1.87
223
1.95
67
1.81
147
1.91
136
2.14
202
2.01
81
2.05
218
2.02
62
2.02
Other
#
Avg
Note 1: Pairs of scores in bold/italic font are significantly different at p < .001 (using
independent-measures t-tests).
Note 2: 0 = never; 1 = seldom; 2 = sometimes; 3 = often; 4 = always
Culture / ethnicity and classroom environment
Group differences also emerged with respect to 4 of the 6 classroom variables.
See Table 9 above. Even though instances of inappropriate racial humor were rare,
minority students appeared more likely to notice them. A similar distinction holds for
American ethnic subgroups: African-American students were significantly more likely to
report instances of inappropriate humor than were white/Caucasian students.28
Majority and USB students, on the other hand, were more likely to see a positive
multicultural orientation in the classroom than were their counterparts, though these
frequency ratings were also relatively low. Again, a similar distinction held within the
American-born students when compared by ethnic groups. Caucasian students were
27
For country of origin: main effect of gender, F (1, 243) = 4.66, p = .03; main effect of country of origin,
F (1, 243) = 16.19, p =.000; interaction, F (1, 243) = 6.99, p = .01. For first language: main effect of
gender, F (1, 242)= 2.86, p = .09; main effect of language, F (1, 242) = 10.38, p = .001; interaction, F (1,
242) = 5.15, p = .02.
28
Overall F (3, 199) = 6.44, p = .000. For African-American students, n = 16, mean = 1.16; for white
students, n = 154, mean = .43. Post hoc Scheffé significant at p < .05.
19
more likely to report instances of such a positive orientation (average score of 2.35) than
were Asian-American (1.91) or African-American students (1.68).29
There were also significant group differences across majority status, country of
origin, and first language on the composite variable of cultural disrespect and the item
regarding majority students shying away from minority students during discussions.
(These differences did not hold similarly for the American-born ethnic subgroups.)
While average frequency ratings for these variables across the board fell between
“seldom” and “sometimes,” they were more likely to be noticed and reported by
minority, NUSB, and OFL students.
Unlike the group differences on the general social environment, none of these
differences regarding classroom environment showed any significant interactions with
gender.
Culture / ethnicity and expectation / perceived outcome variables
Did cultural groups differ in terms of what they expected from Fuller, and what
they perceived of Fuller’s success in meeting those expectations? Table 10 shows the
results of these comparisons.
There was little difference between groups in terms of expectations. All groups
agreed that they wanted Fuller to train them to work in a multicultural environment,
understand cultural differences, be more culturally sensitive, and be more critically aware
of their own cultural biases. We should not miss the potential significance of this. It is
perhaps too easy to assume that “multicultural” training means teaching majority students
to be more aware of and responsive to the ideas, values, and opinions of minority
students. But students from all groups, including minority groups, agreed that they
wanted to be more self-critical and culturally sensitive.
The sole significant group difference was that American-born students were
somewhat more likely to agree that they wanted to learn cultural sensitivity than those
born outside the U.S. There was a gender interaction here, such that country of birth
made more difference to women than it does to men. USB women were most desirous of
learning cultural sensitivity (3.56), while NUSB women were least (3.21). The men’s
scores fell between: USB males averaged 3.37, while NUSB men averaged just slightly
lower at 3.34.30
29
Overall F (3, 188) = 9.76, p = .000. Post hoc Scheffé significant at p < .05. N’s for groups: white, 144;
Asian-American, 20; African-American, 15.
30
For the interaction term, F (1,292) = 4.07, p = .05; for the main effect of gender, F (1, 292) = .13, p =
.72; for the main effect of country of origin, F (1, 292) = 5.95, p = .02.
20
Table 10. Cultural / ethnic group differences on expectations and
perceived outcomes
Majority status
White
majority
Other
Variable
I know what
ministry I will
be doing after
Fuller
I expect Fuller to
train me
to work in a
multicultural
environment
I already know
most of
what I need about
the
cultural context in
which
I’ll probably be
working
Classes usually
relevant to my
anticipated
ministry
Country of origin
United
States
Other
First language
English
Other
#
Avg
#
Avg
#
Avg
#
Avg
#
Avg
#
Avg
149
2.77
146
2.96
207
2.80
88
3.02
223
2.79
69
3.09
149
3.14
148
3.10
209
3.11
88
3.13
225
3.11
69
3.13
147
2.20
146
2.49
205
2.25
88
2.56
221
2.26
69
2.63
148
3.03
148
2.89
208
2.29
88
2.89
224
2.97
69
2.92
3.26
87
3.25
225
3.25
69
3.28
3.49
87
3.28
226
3.46
69
3.32
3.58
87
3.37
226
3.58
69
3.33
225
2.77
68
2.84
225
2.95
68
2.87
225
2.97
68
2.85
I want my training at Fuller to help / teach me to…
Understand
149 3.28 147 3.24 209
cultural differences
Be more culturally
150 3.49 147 3.37 210
sensitive
Be more critically
aware of my 150 3.61 147 3.43 210
cultural biases
Thus far, my training at Fuller has succeeded in helping / teaching me to…
Understand
148 2.83 147 2.76 209 2.77
86 2.84
cultural differences
Be more culturally
148 3.07 147 2.79 209 2.96
86 2.85
sensitive
Be more critically
86 2.80
aware of my 148 3.07 147 2.81 209 3.00
cultural biases
Note 1: Pairs of scores in bold/italic font are significantly different at p < .01 (using independentmeasures t-tests).
Note 2: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = agree; 4 = strongly agree
21
More salient differences arose with respect to the ratings of success. Majority
students were more likely than minority students to agree that Fuller had succeeded in
teaching them cultural sensitivity and critical self-awareness. This result was confirmed
by the further comparison of ethnic subgroups within American-born students, where
there were significant group differences on all three measures of success. AfricanAmerican students were significantly less likely to agree that Fuller had succeeded in
teaching them to understand cultural differences than were any of the other three
groups.31 A similar result held for teaching critical self-awareness: black students were
significantly less likely to rate Fuller as successful in this area than students of other
ethnic groups.32 Black and Asian-American students were also less likely than white /
Caucasian students to agree that Fuller had succeeded in teaching them cultural
sensitivity.33 There were no gender interactions with respect to these three variables of
success.
Tests for association between variables
The previous analyses demonstrate that there were important differences between
cultural and ethnic groups in terms of the variables examined. For planning purposes,
however, it is also important to know if the four “outcome” variables described on page 6
were associated with the instructional, evaluation, and social and classroom environment
variables. It is commonplace among social scientists to recite the mantra, “Correlation is
not causation”—in other words, any associations discovered through such exploratory
analyses can not be taken to prove the existence of a direct causal relationship. Changing
any particular aspect of the social environment of the seminary, including pedagogical
strategies, will not in itself guarantee a corresponding improvement in the seminary’s
ability to achieve its educational mission. Nevertheless, such associations may help point
the seminary community to potentially profitable areas for further study.
Four items (already seen in previous analyses) were used to assess the
empowerment of students: (a) “What I am being taught in my classes is usually relevant
to the kind of ministry I anticipate being involved in”; and “Thus far, my training at
Fuller has succeeded in…” (b) “…helping me understand the specific ways that cultures
differ from each other”; (c) “…teaching me how to be more culturally sensitive”; and (d)
“…teaching me how to be more critically aware of my own cultural biases.” Since
exploratory analyses (not summarized here) showed that the demographic variables of
age and number of quarters of study were occasionally associated with other variables of
interest, the following analyses will use what is known as a partial correlation procedure
to control for the influence of these variables while examining other relationships.
31
Overall F (3, 199) = 8.90, p = 000. Differences between mean scores for Asian-American (2.64, n = 21),
Hispanic/Latino-American (2.77, n = 13) and Caucasian students (2.83, n = 153) are non-significant; mean
for African-American students (2.17, n = 16) differs significantly (Scheffé tests, p < .05) from all other
groups.
32
Overall F (3, 199) = 8.43, p = 000. Differences between mean scores for Asian-American (2.95, n = 21),
Hispanic/Latino-American (3.14, n = 13) and Caucasian students (3.07, n = 153) are non-significant; mean
for African-American students (2.22, n = 16) differs significantly (Scheffé tests, p < .05) from all other
groups.
33
Overall F (3, 199) = 7.57, p = 000. Means for African-American (2.41, n = 16) and Asian-American
students (2.62, n = 21) significantly different (Scheffé tests, p < .05) from Caucasian students (3.07, n =
153). Hispanic/Latino-American students (3.00, n = 13) not significantly different from any other group.
22
Associations with instructional method
Is there any association between the perceived helpfulness of the 18 instructional
methods and the four outcome variables? Only three significant correlations emerged,
and these were modest in magnitude. Students who rated panel discussions and research
papers as helpful were more likely to agree that classes have been relevant to their
anticipated ministries.34 Students who rated cultural immersion assignments as helpful
were more likely to agree that Fuller had succeeded in teaching them the differences
between cultures.35 Moreover, the cultural immersion assignment generated the highest
correlations with the other two “success” variables (regarding cultural sensitivity and
critical awareness) of all the 18 methods—but these were not sufficiently strong to reach
statistical significance.
Associations with evaluation method
Somewhat better results were obtained from an exploration of the associations
with how students rated the accuracy of the 11 methods of evaluation. Students who
rated term papers integrating readings and research papers as accurately reflecting their
learning were more likely to agree that their coursework at Fuller was relevant to their
anticipated ministries.36 The value of research papers was also correlated with success at
learning cultural differences, while ratings for integrative term papers also correlated with
success at learning cultural sensitivity.37
The accuracy ratings of three other methods of evaluation were positively
correlated with the third success variable: the more highly a student rated reflection
papers, smaller quizzes, and mixed-type exams, the more likely they were to agree that
Fuller had succeeded in teaching them to be critically aware of their own biases.38
Associations with general social / classroom environment
Perhaps the most striking associations were found with the variables measuring
perceptions of the social environment, whether of the seminary in general or the
classroom in particular. Table 11 below shows the results.
There were isolated significant correlations between particular environment
variables and particular outcomes. For example, the more respondents perceived the
infrastructural shortcomings of Fuller, and the more they agreed that students tend to
socialize in culturally homogeneous groups, the less they agreed that their courses were
relevant. Similarly, the lack of integrating diversity into coursework was negatively
associated with Fuller’s success at teaching cultural differences, and both inappropriate
humor and instances of majority students shying away from minority students were
negatively associated with the respondents’ ratings of Fuller’s success at teaching cultural
sensitivity.
34
For panel discussions, n = 197, r = .21; for research papers, n = 269, r = .16.
n = 80, r = .29.
36
For integrative term papers, n = 249, r = .23; for research papers, n = 272, r = .22. Both correlations are
statistically significant at p < .001.
37
For research papers and cultural differences, n = 272, r = .20, p < .001; for term papers and cultural
sensitivity, n = 249, r = .18.
38
For reflection papers, n = 270, r = .17; for smaller quizzes, n = 231, r = .19; for mixed-type exams, n =
237, r = .21. The latter result is significant at p < .001.
35
23
Table 11. Association of environment and outcome variables
Courses
relevant
Variable
Understand
cultural
differences
Cultural
sensitivity
Critical
selfawareness
General social environment a
Perceived infrastructural need
Unease with diversity
Diverse people welcome
Multiculturalism mostly
valued as a PC slogan
Some students, for cultural
reasons, need to be encouraged to
speak up
Diversity at Fuller
personally valuable
More time on exams for
non-English students
Have made one good friend
of another culture
Students socialize in culturally
homogeneous groups
For a multicultural environment,
attitude more important than
course content
-.22
-.34
.19
-.15
-.23
.19
-.15
-.34
.28
-.17
-.25
.14
-.10
-.12
-.21
-.22
-.11
.001
-.08
-.08
.07
.19
.25
.17
.10
.05
-.02
-.03
-.002
.09
.10
.05
-.27
-.13
-.12
-.07
-.004
-.02
.04
.07
Classroom environment b
Multicultural orientation
in the classroom
Inappropriate humor
Cultural disrespect
Majority students shy away from
minority students in discussions
Profs expect minority students to
act as experts in their cultures
Diversity addressed but not
integrated into course
.38
.34
.38
.36
-.16
-.15
-.08
-.02
-.19
-.11
-.10
-.08
-.13
-.14
-.21
-.09
-.03
.07
.12
.08
-.11
-.17
-.15
-.11
Note 1: Third-order partial correlation coefficients, controlling for age and number of quarters.
Note 2: Coefficients in bold / italic font are statistically significant at p < .01 or better.
a
n = 220.
b
n = 239.
Some environment variables, however, were significantly associated with two or
more of the outcomes. Students who viewed multiculturalism as a PC slogan were less
likely to judge Fuller as successful at teaching cultural sensitivity or critical awareness of
24
one’s own biases. Those who viewed the seminary as welcoming of students of diverse
backgrounds were more likely to agree that their training was relevant, and that Fuller
had succeeded in teaching them both cultural differences and cultural sensitivity.
Similarly, those who personally valued the diversity of Fuller’s student body were also
more likely to judge the seminary as successful at teaching cultural differences,
sensitivity, and critical self-awareness.
The most striking outcomes were for the composite variables of unease and
multicultural orientation. The greater the perceived unease with diversity among faculty
and students, the lower the outcome scores across the board. Conversely, the more
students perceived a positive multicultural orientation in the classroom, the higher the
outcome scores—courses were viewed as more relevant, and the seminary was judged as
more successful at teaching cultural differences, sensitivity, and critical self-awareness.
Significant associations found for the sample as a whole, however, can still mask
group differences. In some cases, the overall association for the sample was accounted
for more by one group than another.39 For example, the relationship between valuing the
diversity of the student body and the three success measures (cultural differences,
sensitivity, critical self-awareness) held more for minority students than majority
students. For the latter group, taken by themselves, none of these associations were
statistically significant.40 Similarly, the significant associations of the two environment
variables of inappropriate humor and majority students shying from minority students
with the outcome of cultural sensitivity also held far more for minority students than
majority students.41 And while the relationship of Fuller as a welcoming environment to
the seminary’s success at teaching cultural differences and sensitivity was stronger for
minority students,42 the converse was true for the relevance of courses: majority students
who viewed Fuller as a multiculturally welcoming environment were more likely to view
their training as relevant than were minority students.43 Thus, while the general patterns
in Table 11 may suggest possible avenues for strategic change, one must bear in mind
that any effects such changes may bring will likely benefit one group more than another.
Implications
The purpose of this study has been to identify aspects of campus life, in terms of
classroom pedagogy and social environment, which either support or hinder the goal of
empowering students of diverse cultures for ministry. It is clear that for at least the group
of students who participated in the survey, this type of learning was desired: students
across all cultural groups agreed that they wanted Fuller to teach them about cultural
39
In the following examples, only the majority / minority group distinction will be used, since the subgroup
sizes for country of origin and first language are too small to make statistical significance likely, making it
more difficult to interpret differences.
40
The correlations for minority students (n = 117) are r = .27, .24, and .18 respectively; for majority
students (n = 99), the corresponding coefficients are -.08, .11, and -.007.
41
The coefficients for minority students (n = 109) are r = -.22 (p = .018) and -.25 (p = .009) respectively;
for majority students (n = 126), the corresponding coefficients are -.04 and -.03.
42
The coefficients for minority students (n = 117) are r = .24 and .28 respectively; for majority students (n
= 99), the corresponding coefficients are .05 and .12, neither of which is statistically significant.
43
The coefficient for majority students (n = 99) is a statistically significant r = .29, but a non-significant r =
.10 for minority students (n = 117).
25
differences, and ways to be more culturally sensitive and self-aware. It is also clear that
there was a gap between what students wanted and how well they thought Fuller had
succeeded in supplying it. In some cases, majority students appeared more sanguine than
minority students. Black Americans, for example, were most likely of all groups tested
to disagree that Fuller was successful in any of the three areas mentioned.
The question, therefore, is, “Are there areas of improvement that could be
addressed by strategic planning and further research?” This section attempts to integrate
the above findings and suggest some potential next steps.
Implications for pedagogy
The findings related to how helpful students found each of 18 instructional
methods probably tell us more about what students share in common than how they
differ. While all methods, across all cultural groups, were rated at least “a little helpful,”
students appeared unanimous in affirming the real-world application of lecture material
to be the most helpful strategy. This was the case even though “lecture from lecture
notes” was uniformly rated near the bottom. Interacting with professors outside of class,
and the availability of printed lecture notes or outlines, were ranked second and third. At
the other end of the scale, students found doing student presentations and being
questioned by the professor on assigned readings to be less helpful, and this was true
across cultural groups.
Some group differences did emerge. American-born students found music to be
more helpful as an instructional method than students born outside the U.S., but both
groups ranked it near the bottom, making this finding of questionable use. More
interesting was the fact that majority and EFL students found interaction with the
professor outside class to be more helpful than minority and OFL students, respectively.
Even so, minority students ranked this item third, and OFL students fourth. Taken
together, these findings suggest that adopting certain pedagogical strategies should be
perceived as more helpful for student learning overall—which will likely entail the use of
multiple modalities in place of straight lecture. In the classroom, professors can consider
the practical value of making concrete applications of lecture material where possible,
distributing outlines, or even using visual presentation software such as PowerPoint.
Outside the classroom, field trips and cultural immersion experiences may prove
particularly useful. Most importantly, perhaps, faculty need to be available for
interaction with students. Further investigation is needed, however, to determine why
minority and OFL students found interaction with the professor somewhat less helpful.
Since ratings on these variables were made only by students who had actually
experienced the method in question, the explanation cannot be simply that minority and
OFL students were not approaching their professors. We need to know what it was about
such interaction that some respondents may have perceived negatively, in order to make
the professor-student relationship as empowering to students as possible.
Similar comments may be made with respect to our methods of evaluating student
learning. Again, there was more uniformity than difference in terms of how students rate
the accuracy of each of the 11 methods presented. Not surprisingly, multiple choice
exams ranked universally near the bottom, though it cannot be known to what extent this
was due to poorly constructed exams as opposed to the viability of the method in itself.
26
Student presentations, already ranked poorly as an avenue of learning, were also ranked
low as a method of evaluation.
At the positive end, students across all cultural distinctions uniformly rank “term
papers that focus on integrating reading assignments” as the most accurate gauge of their
learning in a class (as opposed to “research papers,” which ranked 7th, or “reflection
papers,” which ranked 5th). Students also prefer “smaller quizzes spread throughout the
quarter”: this ranks second in all groups. Similarly, students tended to endorse the idea
that assignments in general should be spread out over the quarter. Such findings may
reflect the related issues of time and workload (especially considering the amount of offcampus work in which many students were engaged), albeit somewhat differently. Given
their limited resources, students are often ambivalent about reading (and purchasing!)
books that are not well-integrated into the learning goals of a course; term papers
designed to integrate those readings may help in this regard. Spreading quizzes over the
full span of a ten-week quarter relieves some of the time and work strain associated with
the typical pile-up of exams and papers during the 11th week, potentially giving a better
measure of student learning.
Significant cultural group differences here had to do with essay and mixed-format
exams. Minority, NUSB, and OFL students rated such exams as less accurate measures
of their learning than did their majority, USB, and EFL counterparts. Essay exams, for
example, ranked 2nd for majority, USB, and EFL students, but 4th for minority students
and 6th for NUSB and EFL students. As we have already seen, minority, NUSB, and
OFL students were significantly more likely to agree with both the statement that
“Because of my language skills, I am anxious in exams,” and “I need extra time for essay
questions.” This consideration is tempered by the fact that in each case the group
averages actually fall short of the point on the scale for “agree.”
As faculty consider the use of exams and quizzes to assess student learning, these
findings suggest that (a) students prefer having tests and other assignments spread over
the quarter, (b) students do not regard multiple choice exams as accurate measures of
their learning, and (c) while essay exams are preferable to multiple choice, in a timed
format they may favor students of greater language skill. As the seminary continues to
draw students from globally diverse populations, a culturally sensitive pedagogy will
have to address questions of the relationship between learning, language, and culture—
and how to assess learning in ways that are relatively free of undue cultural bias.
The instructional and evaluation strategies that faculty adopt should thus strive
first to meet general educational goals in a manner that is equitable for a diverse student
body. But how much will such pedagogical decisions affect the more specific goal of
empowering for multicultural ministry? Correlational analyses suggest that across the
student body, there was little to no direct relationship between instructional method and
the simple measures used to operationalize success at multicultural training. This should
not be surprising, given what is probably tremendous variation in how faculty actually
employ any particular method. In other words, the results do not necessarily imply that
instructional method is irrelevant—only that the variation in teaching styles would
already make it difficult to find any kind of consistent systematic effect.44 Here,
anecdotal evidence from faculty and students could be helpful: What have individual
44
Even with statistically significant correlations of larger magnitude, the question of the direction of any
inferred causal relationship would still be indeterminate.
27
professors done in their own classes that seemed to make a difference? What
pedagogical strategies, and particularly, variations or changes in strategy within a single
course, seem to have encouraged student empowerment? Such information will help us
create a more theory-driven base upon which to base our empirical explorations.
Similar comments could be made with respect to the correlational findings for
evaluation methods, though more of the associations tested were actually statistically
significant. The results favored research and term papers, though in no case did the rated
accuracy of these methods account for more than 5 % of the variation in outcome scores.
As with instructional methods, more information is needed about the variations in faculty
practice and student experience with respect to evaluation.
In summary, given the expectable diversity of how professors actually teach and
evaluate, and how students experience these practices, it is not clear from the present
results that any particular pedagogical strategy will reliably aid the faculty overall in
reaching the goal of multicultural empowerment. This is not to say that there is no
relationship, only that different data, collected under different research design conditions,
would be needed to determine what such a relationship might be. A more realistic and
proximate goal would be for each faculty member to reassess his/her own practices and
educational objectives in light of student feedback regarding (a) how helpful they view
the various instructional methods to be, (b) how accurate they perceive each method of
evaluation to be, and (c) how potential differences between cultural groups might
influence both how we teach and how we evaluate. To the extent that the seminary
maintains its commitment to having a culturally diverse student body, such reassessment
will likely prove to be vital in the long term.
Implications for campus climate
With respect to the goal of multicultural empowerment, then, there is no clear
seminary-wide policy initiative suggested by the data on instructional and evaluation
methods. A different conclusion, however, is suggested by an integration of the findings
with respect to campus climate.
As we have seen, students overall would appear to agree that Fuller is a place that
welcomes students of varied cultures, and that being a part of that diversity has been a
valuable experience personally. Most seem to have reached out across ethnic divisions
and made at least one friend from another cultural background. The bad news is that
there are instances of racist experiences such as inappropriate humor, impatience with or
disrespect for students of non-majority backgrounds, and an overall sense of unease with
diversity. The more hopeful news was that these experiences also seem to be relatively
infrequent, at least as reported by those students who actually participated in the study.
But as the data indicate, there were clear differences between cultural / ethnic
groups in how these variables were perceived. Students of minority backgrounds, those
born outside the U.S., and those whose first language was not English were more likely to
(a) view Fuller as lacking needed resources such as books in other languages, (b)
perceive instances of a general unease with diversity, (c) and view multiculturalism as
little more than a slogan used for the sake of political correctness. Conversely, though
they agree that Fuller welcomes people of diverse backgrounds, they were significantly
less likely to agree than their majority, U.S.-born, or EFL counterparts.
28
And unlike the associations between instructional / evaluation methods and the
four measured outcomes, there was a more consistent (and logical) pattern of relationship
between the environment and outcome variables. For example, there was a consistent
negative relationship between perceived unease with diversity and all four of the
outcomes. This variable, as described earlier, assessed whether professors and students
alike were uncomfortable engaging other cultural perspectives, plus whether the thoughts
and opinions of people from all cultural backgrounds were respected in the classroom.
The greater the level of unease students perceived, the less likely they were to agree that
Fuller was succeeding in terms of its general and multicultural educational goals.
Conversely, there was a consistent positive relationship between the outcomes
and student perceptions of the presence of a multicultural orientation in the classroom.
From the faculty side, this includes such concrete classroom behaviors as demonstrating
relevant knowledge of other cultures, soliciting the input of minority students,
encouraging other cultural points of view, and referring to authors from diverse cultures
and/or requiring that students read their books. From the student side, the variable entails
showing an active interest in other cultural points of view and having discussions in
culturally diverse groups. The greater the perceived presence of such a broad
multicultural orientation, the more likely students were to judge Fuller’s courses as
relevant, as well as successful in meeting the goals of multicultural training.
While such results do not point inexorably in a concrete policy direction, the
potential implications are far-reaching. We must transcend the idea that the issue is one
of occasional and direct acts of racism committed by a few against a few. The fact that
similar patterns in the data can be discerned across different ways of measuring cultural
and ethnic differences suggests something more systemic. If, as the data suggest, there
are group differences in how the climate is perceived, this pattern may also be selfreinforcing: differences in perception of and response to the social environment may fuel
misunderstanding and widen the gap between groups.
Given the correlational nature of the data, we cannot simply conclude that how
students evaluate Fuller’s ability to give them the multicultural training they say they
desire was a direct consequence of how they perceived the seminary’s social environment
with respect to race and culture. It is possible, for example, that their perceptions of the
environment were themselves shaped by Fuller’s training. Positive perceptions of a
multicultural orientation may have led to a similarly positive evaluation of Fuller’s
success, or reasoning in the other direction, an overall positive evaluation of one’s
training could have created a “halo effect” that influenced what respondents remembered
of the social environment. The same could be said for the relationship between the
perception of unease and a negative evaluation. In all likelihood, both ways of
interpreting the results contain some element of truth.
Either way, the results suggest some general ways for the seminary community to
begin to embody the principles of Fuller’s Statement on Racial Justice and Intercultural
Life, the document whose implementation provides the initial impetus for this study. The
items within each of the scales, derived in part from the qualitative results of the first
phase of this research, provide some clues to behavioral and attitudinal changes that may
prove beneficial to the seminary’s mission. In that vein, the following is a list of
questions for reflection and/or discussion, extrapolating from the findings of this report.
29
•
How comfortable are faculty and students in accepting and responding to the
perspectives of those from another culture? If there is discomfort, how is it
expressed?
• What do students of various cultural backgrounds actually experience as
welcoming? From the negative side, what constitutes inappropriate humor or
other behaviors experienced as hurtful?
• How can we make the diversity that already exists more personally valuable to
each member of the student body?
• What can be done to encourage students to continue to reach out to each other in
friendship across ethnic and cultural boundaries? What can be done in classroom
settings to ensure that students of all backgrounds are welcomed as participants in
discussion groups?
• What can be done to encourage and empower faculty to explore alternative
cultural perspectives in ways that are relevant to each course taught, and to
engage such perspectives in the classroom and in required assignments?
This is only a partial list of questions to explore; serious dialogue on these and related
matters will hopefully help us determine some concrete steps that will begin to fulfill the
spirit of the Statement.
Limitations of the study
The limitations of the present research were typical of studies of this type, and
counsel us to caution in our interpretations and applications. First, we must acknowledge
frankly that the variables that were herein referred to as “outcomes” were not technically
outcomes at all, but measures of attitudes that we can only hope accurately represent the
result of prior training. If the seminary really wishes to know what legitimate outcomes
to measure in terms of empowering students in their future ministries, a commitment to
longitudinal research will be necessary. Nevertheless, if creating a positively
multicultural social environment is indeed a worthy goal, then how students
retrospectively evaluate their experiences at Fuller will still be relevant. Subjective
measures of how successful the students themselves perceive their training to be should
continue to be used, even when more “objective” measures can be identified.
A second and crucial matter is that of representativeness. The characteristics of
the sample do not match the larger demographic profile; compared to the student body as
a whole, for example, women and psychology students were overrepresented. Though
the sample size in itself was generally more than adequate for statistical purposes, only
slightly more than one-third of the questionnaires distributed were actually returned.
This is a typical response rate for this type of study, but it raises the question of whether
the views and opinions of the respondents fairly represent the student body as a whole.
This becomes even more pertinent when making group comparisons, where some of the
generalizations had to be made with fewer than 20 representatives of a particular ethnic
group. Future questionnaire studies will somehow need to ensure a better response rate.
With these limitations in mind, we turn to a summary of the comments received
from our external consultants and the students who participated in focus group
discussions. The intent of both of these activities was to provide a check on the findings
and their interpretation, from both inside and outside the seminary.
30
Consultant Commentary
In the third stage of the research, a draft report of the findings, including the
tables and implications above, was sent to six external consultants for comment. The
committee is grateful for the insightful responses received.
A number of comments were given at a broader conceptual level, addressing the
assumptions and theories that might undergird both this and future studies. De La Torre
raised the question of the definition of “diversity” itself. Should it include diversity of
denominations, or sexual orientation? Could a campus be considered “diverse” if there
are students of different nationalities and ethnicities present, but the percentages are out
of step with the demographics of Southern California (as in the underrepresentation of
Latino/a students)? De La Torre further suggested that international students be
considered as a category in their own right, since by virtue of their ability to study in the
United States, many of them represent the more economically privileged class in their
own countries of origin.
In a similar fashion, Anderson raised questions about the varying use of the term
“multicultural” in the study. First, there is the distinction between a “multicultural
environment” and a “multicultural institution” (Ramsay’s term for the latter would be a
“multicultural organization”). The former means that there are students of various
cultures present; the latter means that the institution itself is committed to
multiculturalism in such a way that institutional power is actually shared among people
from diverse backgrounds.
Ramsay uses different terminology, but makes a similar point: there is a
developmental progression from an institution being exclusionary at one end to being
truly committed to anti-racist multiculturalism. Toward that end, she suggests the use of
critical race theory, which would make the study of power discrepancies central. The
willingness to address such issues of the distribution of institutional power raises a host
of questions. How much time and money is Fuller willing to commit to becoming a truly
multicultural institution—and without such willingness, will students continue to view
“multiculturalism” as nothing more than a politically correct slogan (De La Torre)? How
would this affect faculty and staff load—and is this a potential reason for the unease with
diversity noted in the study (Anderson)? And how, if at all, is the goal of being a more
thoroughly multicultural institution embodied in hiring and promotion criteria
(Anderson)?
A second ambiguity noted by Anderson is that the nature of the training goal
needs to be clarified. Is Fuller seeking to empower its students to minister in settings that
are themselves multicultural, or is it seeking to empower a diversity of students to
minister effectively in a diversity of environments which may themselves be
monocultural? The distinction is subtle but important, for each requires its own
expertise.
The consultants also responded with specific comments about specific findings.
The finding which invited the most comment was that interacting with the professor
outside of class seemed important to all students, but that majority and EFL students
found this interaction more helpful than minority or OFL students did. As Trimiew
commented, “As a seminary professor and seminary student, it has been my experience
that the willingness of most faculties to enter into the world and micro-societies of
31
culturally diverse students is usually much less successful and enriching than classroom
interactions. Such interactions are, however, very important pedagogical exercises.”
Further study, particularly qualitative study, of this is needed. In particular, as Roberts
notes, more needs to be known about what cultural norms may stand behind such
differences in student experience. Do minority and OFL students find interaction with
the professor less helpful because of cultural norms of deference? If so, it may the
professor who needs to initiate or invite the interaction. Furthermore, it is likely that
students may seek out faculty who are more similar to them in terms of cultural
background. The implication: “hire faculty of color” who actually teach theology and
ministry from outside the Euro-American mainstream (De La Torre).
Other suggestions regarding pedagogy included exploring further the potential of
cultural immersion assignments. These provide the kind of affective learning needed to
complement cognitive, content-oriented learning that typically happens in the classroom
(Roberts). Such assignments, however, need to be designed carefully in a way congruent
with the culture in which one is being immersed (De La Torre).
Parallel suggestions were made for faculty development. Ramsay recommends
using outside facilitators to work with faculty and administrators to discover how their
own racial identities influence their interactions with students. Similarly, De La Torre
suggests that faculty be assigned to read and discuss a book that specifically addresses
discrimination in academia.
Consultants made a number of recommendations aimed at helping Fuller become
a more inclusive, empowering, and truly multicultural institution:
• Professors must read the work scholars of color within their own areas of study (De
La Torre). It is recognized that it may be “virtually impossible” for faculty to stay
current with all the work being done across cultures in her/his field, but that regular
consultation and conversation with colleagues inside and outside the institution could
help (Anderson).
• Provide more time for OFL students on exams given in English (De La Torre). The
reluctance to do so may reflect the extent to which a Euro-American majority has
failed to consider the power discrepancies that are systemically taken for granted
(Ramsay).
• Professors need to be more sensitive about the potential negative effects of using
students as cultural experts in the classroom, and more study is needed to determine
why and in what way this is detrimental (Roberts).
• Adopt a zero-tolerance policy for racist comments (De La Torre). Some of the
findings of the study suggest that speaking up in the classroom may be unsafe for
some students; instances of racism in the classroom need to be dealt with surely.
• Purchase more foreign language books for the library (De La Torre).
Recommendations were also made for further study, whether in terms of further
analysis of the current data, or the gathering of new data. Overall, as Roberts suggested,
the research needs to go deeper, delving beneath the evaluation of pedagogical practices
to the sometimes invisible norms that make such practices effective or ineffective with
students of different cultures. More specific recommendations included the following:
• Conduct more group analyses, either by analyzing student responses by school, or by
making NUSB and OFL students into one group and comparing them to USB and
EFL students (Yu);
32
•
•
•
•
•
Present more of the qualitative data from Stages 1 and 2, and gather further
qualitative data (Trimiew);
Gather data not just from students, but alumni and faculty (Trimiew); in particular,
gather more information about pedagogical practices from faculty which they can
intentionally share and discuss with one another (Anderson);
Study contexts other than the classroom (Roberts);
Engage outside consultants to examine the catalog and course syllabi (Trimiew);
Study how corporate worship on campus either supports or discourages the sense of
Fuller’s being a welcoming and multicultural environment (Anderson).
Student Commentary
In the fourth and final stage of the study, student focus groups were convened to
ensure an opportunity for an array of student voices to be heard in response to the report
and its conclusions. Their candid comments reflected considerable pain in their
experiences as students at Fuller, suggesting the sobering likelihood that the voices of
disempowered and disenfranchised students were not adequately represented in the study.
As described earlier, three focus groups were convened. It should be noted that
the original intent was to convene several more. Students, however, seemed reluctant to
participate, whether due to scheduling demands, or the perceived power discrepancies
referred to above. In the end, three groups consented to meet to discuss the report: one
African-American group, one group of Latino/a students, and one group of Korean
students. Each group was led by a non-faculty facilitator.
The students were asked to read the report and respond to the following questions.
First, how were the conclusions and suggestions of the report congruent with their own
experiences at Fuller? Second, how were they not congruent? The third and final
question was the most general: What one or two key messages about the multicultural
environment would you want the faculty and administration at Fuller to understand?
Responses varied markedly in tone and emphasis. Some comments were
addressed directly to the findings of the report, either in direct agreement or
disagreement, with anecdotal elaboration. Others used the report as a springboard into
discussing their own experiences of racism at Fuller.45
In response to some of the survey findings, students pointed to constructive steps
professors could take to support student learning, particularly where English was not a
student’s first language:
• Use handouts to help students follow the lecture, and don’t lecture in tangents.
• Don’t lecture too quickly.
• Use “real world” applications of lecture material. (Note: Here, De La Torre raises the
important question of “whose real world” is referenced.)
• Encourage EFL students to share their class notes with OFL or international students.
• Make assignments and instructions clear.
• Use smaller quizzes spread throughout the quarter.
• Recognize the added difficulty of essay exams for OFL students when time
constraints are imposed.
45
With only occasional exceptions, student comments will not be distinguished by group.
33
•
•
Use devotions at the beginning of class to create a receptive learning environment.
Assign students to culturally diverse small groups so they can get to know one
another through the process of working together.
Comments from the Korean student group also provided important insight into the
matter of student interactions with professors outside of class. They affirmed that
inherited Confucian norms created some reticence in approaching professors. Yet when
professors invited interaction, they were eager to accept, and such person-to-person
contact enhanced their learning. Such comments support Roberts’ observations, and
suggest yet another way that faculty can help create a more supportive learning
environment.
Many of the student’s comments evinced significant anger and pain. As one
student remarked, “Fuller is not doing a good job with issues of culture and race in any
real significant way.” Parallel comments included:
• “The class curriculum is designed and catered to fill the needs of a Western, white,
European North American audience.”
• “There is no safe place to be open and honest.”
• “We are always brushed to the side.”
• “Not only are we not part of the syllabus, we are not even part of the lecture.”
• “The professors can do whatever they want with no accountability.”
• “There is no cultural sensitivity on this campus from the leadership, from the
professors, or from the people who hire.”
• “As minority students we are aware that the ‘good old boy club’ is still alive and well
here at Fuller, and it tears the minority students down every day… Many minorities
know that no matter how hard they work they will never be considered for the TA
position or other positions because they are minorities and they don’t look like the
professor.”
• “Fuller uses the term ‘diversity’ as a marketing tool and it is an insult and frustrating
when people arrive here and find that not only is there no real diversity, but there is
no real attempt at attaining diversity.”
Such comments implied two general themes:
Racism is probably more widespread at Fuller than the report would suggest
As suggested above, questions of pedagogy may be secondary to matters of
climate. As noted by our external consultants, a primary question to be addressed is the
extent to which institutional power is vested in ways that disenfranchise certain groups of
students, whether knowingly or unknowingly. Because it may be expressed in many
ways, institutional racism may be more widespread than the report would suggest. As
one student commented: “What is written in this report is no way representative of what
is happening on this campus between students and professors.”
Perhaps the most egregious example given of this was of an adjunct faculty who
addressed one minority group in the course as “you people.” The incident was reported
to the administration twice, but no action was taken, and the students were told that their
only option was to endure. As one student remarked, “What we are getting here at Fuller
is not what is being advertised.”
34
Students also noted more subtle behaviors by faculty that they found offensive.
Majority and minority students are treated differently. Faculty make more eye contact
with majority students, wait longer for them to respond, and interrupt less often when
they do respond. Majority student comments are quoted more often than those of
minority students. Professors probe majority student answers more thoroughly, and use a
tone of voice that conveys greater interest. By contrast, professors were perceived to use
a more patronizing tone with minority students.
Some participants agreed that minority students were “put on the spot” in
classroom discussions to represent their own race as if they were experts (in the face of a
lack of faculty expertise). Some respondents viewed this as at least recognition by the
faculty member that multicultural issues were involved—which was seen as preferable to
complete denial or ignorance on the part of the professor. But as other students noted,
this practice “leaves the minority student drained,” such that majority students have the
more positive and productive experience.
The experience of racism includes the unintended ways in which students are
meant to feel excluded or invisible. Professors may give more credence to the thoughts
and opinions of majority students, even when the topic of discussion is cultural diversity.
Lectures and required readings are strictly Eurocentric, and students have to petition to
take courses taught by faculty of color.
The experience of invisibility includes other symbolic indications that the
challenges of being an international or OFL students are not recognized or are taken for
granted. It is already difficult to be a successful full-time student, due to the heavy
demands placed upon a student’s time and energy. This is doubly challenging for OFL
and international students.
Due to a lack of financial support, for example, many international students must
work full-time, which adds to the difficulty of meeting Fuller’s academic standard. And
why, as the study notes, do students tend to socialize in culturally homogeneous groups?
As one of the focus groups discussed, it is not for lack of desire to make and maintain
friends of other cultures. But to do so requires effort and intentionality. Given their
added burdens, it is simply easier for OFL and international students to socialize with
others of their same language and culture. A related issue is that there are too few
bilingual staff in the various offices of the seminary, making it more difficult for OFL
students to complete required transactions on campus.
It must be noted, however, that racism on the Fuller campus is not limited to how
faculty and administration treat students. Minority students report feeling majority
students shying away from them in group discussions. Minority faculty are disrespected
by some majority students, who make fun of their accents or make an issue out of
pointing out their typographical errors. Students even note the ways in which minority
faculty are treated with less respect by the administration and by their majority faculty
peers. Minority staff members, one group reported, have also had to endure faculty
meetings where racial jokes were told, as if minority individuals were not present.
Some students do not feel safe in the classroom, particularly in discussions of culture
The study notes a general unease in the classroom regarding diversity. At times,
this unease leads to hurtful experiences that leave students feeling unsafe. Some minority
35
students, for example, have pointed out in class when another student’s remark was
perceived as offensive. But in the instances reported, the professor did not address the
offending comment, and the minority student was made to apologize. Needless to say,
the minority students were left feeling not only abandoned, but potentially “blacklisted.”
As one group commented, “A repercussion for being vocal creates a culture of silence. If
you are vocal, your letters of recommendation will not be as shiny as others’, or the TA
position that you want won’t be available to you. Most minority students sit in the back
of the class and say very little or nothing to keep from getting trampled.” Another
student from a different focus group remarked that minority students are reluctant to
speak up in class because they fear “retribution in the classroom.”
But it is not only minority students who feel unsafe. Both majority and minority
students “are afraid to engage in dialogue because they don’t want to be perceived as
racists.” This is exacerbated by the fact that “there is not enough time to work through a
conversation to resolution” in the classroom, and professors are seen as being too busy to
offer mentoring relationships. The result is the perception that “there is nowhere to have
a safe conversation” about issues of race, culture, and diversity.
Conclusion
There is still much to learn about the practices that best serve theological
education in a multicultural environment such as is found at Fuller. Students—again,
across all cultural groups—want their seminary experience to prepare them for ministry
in ways that are multiculturally informed. The present study suggests some pedagogical
strategies that may benefit students across cultures even if such practices do not directly
constitute multicultural training. The study also points to the importance of the tone and
tenor of the community in embracing the diversity that is already here. Fuller is already
host to students from many countries and cultures, and in that sense is culturally diverse.
As our consultants have noted, however, such numeric diversity cannot be an end in
itself. There is much to be done if the seminary wishes to move from being a
multicultural environment to being a truly multicultural institution that empowers people
of all cultures.
The research has yielded mixed results. The results of the survey, taken by
themselves, seem to indicate that Fuller is already succeeding in some ways in the quest
to become a more truly multicultural institution. But it remains an open question as to
whether these results truly represent all student voices. The focus group discussions
would suggest that this is not the case, and that students who already feel marginalized
were not adequately represented.
Even if, however, one assumes that implicitly and explicitly racist interactions are
not the norm in the classroom, our commitment as a seminary to racial justice means that
such behaviors must be recognized as unacceptable. If we wish to empower our students
for ministry, then those who hold institutional power must take active responsibility for
shaping the classroom and campus into safer environments for people of all cultures.
The reality of our frailty and fallibility means that there will always be a need for
further growth and learning, and the process is likely to generate significant discomfort.
To quote consultant Sam Roberts: “The study raised for me one of the paradoxes that
groups are likely to experience as they seek greater levels of racial inclusivity: without
36
self-conscious intentionality, members of different groups are less likely to effect genuine
levels of inclusivity. Yet it is precisely the self-conscious intentionality that engenders so
much mutual pain and unease between the groups.”
The movement toward the developmental goal of being a fully multicultural
institution will pose significant challenges. It is hoped that this study will contribute to
the ongoing conversation that will be needed to encourage and sustain such growth.
Assessment and Outcome
The research project has succeeded in providing several concrete and helpful
suggestions for improving classroom pedagogy, which will be shared with faculty. As
the report makes obvious, however, more questions have been raised, and much work
remains to be done. Further research is still needed to determine to what extent the
comments by students in the focus groups generalize to other minority, international, and
OFL students. Numerous suggestions for further study have also been made by our
consultants. The original grant proposal anticipated that the funded activities would be
only the beginning of a long process of study and change. The results have only
deepened that perception. The next step is faculty discussion, as described below. From
there, the JFMCC will consult with the Provost’s office to determine what further
research should be done.
Dissemination
Internal and external channels of dissemination are planned for this report.
Internally, the entire report will be made available online to the seminary community. An
abbreviated version will be prepared for distribution to the faculty, to be discussed at a
meeting of the entire Joint Faculty of the seminary. Externally, another condensed
version of the report will be prepared for publication in Theological Education. The
Project Director with co-author the article with Candace Shields and Kirsten Oh, the
graduate students who helped organize and facilitate the student focus groups.
37